Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Potential CBA Termination and Negotiations
#1
As most of us know, in September 2019, both the league and the players have the option to elect to terminate the CBA a year early - termination would be effective mid-September 2020 so after the 2019/20 season (after the expansion draft if SEA expansion goes ahead as planned, after the draft, after free agency but prior to the 2020/21 season).

The league can elect full the early termination by notice prior to September 1, 2019 and, if they don't elect to terminate, the players have the option to elect to terminate by notice prior to September 15, 2019.

Here is a pretty solid article by LeBrun including quotes from Daley, Fehr and various players.

It seems the owners are generally quite happy but the players like to mention the concessions they've given up in the past. I believe the players hate the current escrow mechanics and that may be the issue that gets them to elect to re-open. We all know the players want to go to the Olympics and may want to hard-wire that in as well (although they should realize that China is huge for the league right now so the league will also want to be there for the next Olympics).

https://theathletic.com/518062/2018/09/1...ba-battle/

LeBrun: With owners mostly satisfied, it may be the players at centre of next CBA battle

We​ will know a year​ from now.

And​ what​ we​ might​ find out is​ that this​ time it is​ the​​ players bringing the fight, not the owners.

Either way, all signs point to the players this time deciding the opening dynamic.

The NHL and the NHL Players’ Association next September must announce their intentions regarding the opening of the current collective bargaining agreement in the fall of 2020.

Yes, take a moment to shudder.

What a world it would be for fans (and media) if both sides decide not to re-open and let the CBA runs its full course through the 2021-22 season.

Hey, you never know.

What’s different this time around is that the league and its owners aren’t frothing at the mouth for a battle. They got their hard salary cap by laying waste to an entire season in 2004-05 and then sacrificed a half year in 2012-13 to bring the players’ revenue share down to 50 percent.

And they’ve been largely satisfied ever since.

In fact, if I’m reading the tea leaves right, I believe the NHL’s Board of Directors before the Sept. 1, 2019 deadline, will vote not to re-open the current deal.

“Look, I’m not going to make the Board’s decision, and that decision doesn’t have to be made for a year,” said NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly. “There are always things that can be improved and you want to improve in a CBA, but generally, I think the system has worked the way we hoped it would. It’s produced a great product on the ice, it’s produced unbelievable competitive balance, and I would say generally speaking, I think our Board is pretty satisfied with how the CBA has worked.’’

If indeed the owners vote to stay in the current deal, that will put the focus squarely on the players, who have until Sept. 15, 2019, two weeks later, to announce their intentions.

And that’s where it gets interesting.

“It is fair to say that the players understand the magnitude of the concessions that were made last time around,” said NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr. “And it’s front and centre in their memories.’’

We should know their intentions before next September’s respective deadlines.

“I would be astonished if by mid-summer we don’t both know whether either party is going to open,” Fehr said.“
I’m assuming we’re going to know, maybe not, but I’m assuming we are.’’

So if the NHL and its owners finally are at bliss, more or less, with the system, can a lockout be avoided?

Again, that might just depend on the players.

“Obviously, it’s a very touchy subject, but I think we’re at a time now where the NHL is starting to gain a little bit of momentum,” said Edmonton Oilers superstar Connor McDavid. “I think this year was big for the NHL with Vegas coming in and doing so well and Washington winning. Just the overall competitiveness of the league; I think it was a very good time for the NHL. We’re starting to build a little bit of steam here and I don’t think either party wants to give that up. Because ultimately you’re almost giving it all back if you have a lockout.

“It’s something I don’t think either party wants to do. . . Ultimately I think both sides are trying to avoid it. It’s not good for anyone, it’s not good for the league and it’s not good for the players. Everyone wants to play and the league wants to keep making money.’’

Eric Staal is a veteran of two NHL lockouts. He’s got the scars. Now he’s hoping to avoid a hat trick.

“For hockey’s sake, not just us as players but for fans and everyone that’s involved in the game, it would be great to get something accomplished and locked in and done,” Staal said. “We did definitely make significant concessions the last two times. I think fans, in general, paid the price because we missed a whole year and half a year, that was no fun for anybody. But it’s obviously just a process and as a union, as players, this year we’ll learn a lot more about the game plan and what we’re thinking and hopefully something can get accomplished before it expires.’’

Before it expires. Imagine that.

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman, during his Stanley Cup final state of the union news conference in June, raised eyebrows when he came out and said the league was ready to talk CBA with the union at any time.

A bit early, of course. But perhaps underlining the league’s eagerness to avoid a labour war this time.

Again, because of the concessions given to owners previously, it really does come down to how the players want to approach it as far as the re-opener and then what they want to gain.

“Obviously in the last two agreements the owners were able to secure concessions which were significant and they’ve done very well as a result of it,” Fehr said. “Neither players nor owners will forget that. At least we don’t hear complaints at this point (from owners) about how well the industry is doing.’’

No owner will ever be totally happy, some teams are still struggling, but no doubt this is as quiet as it’s been in a long time from their camp. The system is decent.

“It’s not perfect and 50/50 (revenue share with players) doesn’t work for a lot of teams, but let’s face it, how do you argue off 50/50?’’ said one NHL team owner, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the league forbids owners from talking CBA with media. “I’m sure players say the same but I think everyone has to admit it works good enough. Is it worth striking or locking out? I don’t think so.

“I’d like to see some things improved but I’m not sure it’s worth a huge fight, missed games or a season,’’ added the owner.

No, it doesn’t seem worth a stoppage.

Oh, there are issues to be sure. The players will point to escrow and the Olympics as the main two (more on that Wednesday in Part 2). The league and the owners, if pushed, probably wouldn’t mind limiting the length of player contracts, among other potential tweaks.

But enough for a massive stand-off?

It just feels like for once both sides have an actual shot at avoiding Armageddon.

“I think this time it seems like there’s much less to try and iron out, which I think is positive,” said Ottawa Senators centre Matt Duchene. “Last time you could see that storm coming and this time it doesn’t feel that way to me. So we’ll see. It’s a business agreement, there’s never one side that’s 100 percent happy.’’

If it were only that simple, of course.

Given the battle scars Bettman, Daly and Fehr still hold from the last go-around, you always worry those old wounds will re-surface. That the knee-jerk reaction from the main principals is to retreat and/or ignite.
Fehr, for one, says whatever happened in the past shouldn’t necessarily influence the next chapter in collective bargaining.

“There’s this tendency that we all engage in, including me, to look back at history and say this necessarily will predict the future,” Fehr said. “And sometimes it does. But the problem is every agreement stands on its own. And the greater the length of time is between these agreements, the less likelihood that the particular history that people remember provoking the last dispute is going to drive the next dispute.’’

Still, there’s that underlying fear that old habits die hard and both sides will swing away again, at the fans’ expense.

“It seems to be the only professional sports league that seems to go back to the same situation,” said Chicago Blackhawks captain Jonathan Toews. “There’s got to be a way that the NHLPA and the league can work together and identify the way that we’re on the same team. We want to grow the sport, whatever the game plan is, it doesn’t matter, that’s what it comes down to.’’

I relayed Toews’ comment to Daly.

“You know me, you know that I always like to view the glass is half-full and not half-empty,” said Daly. “We’re a long way away from missing any games. Hopefully, we never get there. Certainly, I’ll be dedicated to making sure we don’t get there. It doesn’t mean it can’t happen, because I can’t make the deal myself, but certainly it’s not in anybody’s interest to miss time.’’

The next step is for the players to continue to get their ducks in order. That’s already started over the last year with NHLPA staff educating players as much as possible in meetings but it’s going to really step up over the next year.

“We’re prepared to talk about the collective agreement at any time the Players’ Association is prepared to talk about it,” Daly said. “It’s not something that you prepare for based on certain time frames. Our owners are very educated with respect to how the collective bargaining works. They’re given regular updates on what’s been working well and what can be improved. Things that we need to at least talk about with the Players’ Association. So what I’d say is, we certainly have authorization from our constituency to talk about collective bargaining anytime the Players’ Association is prepared to do that. What I’ve been told by the Players’ Association is that they’re in the beginning stages of the process of kind of checking with their constituency about what issues are important to them and at some point they may engage with us.’’

First up this season for the NHLPA on that front, there’s the annual fall tour where Fehr and NHLPA staff meet with players team by team.

“It will be extremely important,” Fehr said. “And we will have over the course of this year, I expect, an ongoing series of meetings with players. We will have the fall tour . . . we will have the former players and probably some of the lawyers out meeting with players. And what you try and do is most of all listen, secondly educate, and then listen some more as to what they think. Because what really matters, and this is true on both sides, is how you feel about the situation. Do you have a sense of being aggrieved? And if you do, can you back that up with data? Yes you are aggrieved, or no you’re not, or you have to look again or things aren’t so bad or they’re worse. That’s an ongoing dialogue.’’

Then, well, the players must decide.

“Then what has to happen, and I think this will be easier than it was in 2012-13 because the players have heard from me a lot more over the intervening period, is that the players have to talk to one another and have to decide what’s important to them,” Fehr said. “What’s important enough to draw a line and say, `All right, this is what we have to have.’’’

Fehr, it would appear, is indeed leading the charge. His leadership was put in question last season by a small group of agents and players. He appears to have survived that challenge. So he’s getting ready to dig in for his second NHL CBA.

He’s got some interesting leverage on the league when it comes to future NHL expansion. Seattle, should it meet all the criteria from the NHL’s Board of Governors and get voted in, is slated to open play in the fall of 2020 — just when a potential labour war could start.

“That’s certainly not going to drive the train on either side,” Daly said of the Seattle impact on the CBA talks. “They obviously have some relationship but certainly our decision on a collective agreement is not being dictated by what’s happening in Seattle and our decision on what happens in Seattle is not being dictated by what’s happening with the collective bargaining relationship. So, they’re related, but one’s not conditioned on the other.’’

Then again, there are 23 jobs waiting in Seattle for players. So there’s that, too, to consider if you’re the NHLPA holding this over the league’s head as a pressure point.

“On balance, expansion is good,” Fehr said. “Even if in theory, God forbid, an expansion team fails, you have x-number of additional jobs for y-number of years. And that matters. Jobs are scarce commodities. So, you’ve got that. Some of the TV contracts are coming up for re-negotiation. You’d also like to do a long international schedule. There’s a lot of reasons to put it together. So I would like to believe we’ll be able to do that. But time will tell.’’
More than ever, in my view, it would be a disgrace if both sides can’t figure this out this time without games being lost. It’s all there in front of them. Get it done.

In Part 2 on Wednesday, more on the two key issues the players need addressing.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#2
To the extent anyone cares, here is part 2 by Lebrun

https://theathletic.com/520177/2018/09/1...iciaption/

Seems the Olympics is a must-have for the players which isn't surprising. At the same time, the players must realize that, given China is a hard-target of the NHL, the next Olympics is a no-brainer. Their interests are aligned but I'm sure the league will find a way to leverage this point over the players.



LeBrun: Players focused on two big-ticket items in next CBA discussions — escrow and Olympic participation

Escrow.​ No Olympics.

If you​ want to​ make​ an​ NHL​ player make a lemon​ face, mention​ either, or if​ you’re​​ looking for maximum effect, slide in both in one sentence.

In the second part of our look at the NHL-NHLPA CBA question, which looms a year from now with the decision on re-opening for 2020, we take a look at the players’ two biggest bugaboos.

Escrow

You can find all you want about escrow on page 254 of the official CBA, section 50.4 (d), after which you may also want to poke your eyes out.

The simple explanation is this: the players every season fork out a percentage of their paycheques into an escrow fund and eventually get some of it back after the NHL and NHLPA finalize the tally on Hockey Related Revenue with each side getting a 50-50 share. If the players en masse ended up making more than 50 percent of HRR, well, they don’t get all of their escrow money back.

It’s not that complicated. It’s just a mechanism to ensure the hard cap reality of a 50-50 HRR split.

But it’s annoying as hell for the players.

“It’s definitely something players aren’t happy about,” said Chicago Blackhawks star Patrick Kane. “The percentage has gone down a little bit but the players would probably agree it’s still a bit too high.’’

He speaks for every single player in the NHL when he says that.

To wit, here’s the year-by-year escrow breakdown during the current CBA:

2017-18 –Final HRR and escrow TBD by NHL and NHLPA. The average escrow withholding rate from players’ paycheques last season was 11.5 percent.

2016-17 – NHL and NHLPA still finalizing final numbers. The average escrow withholding rate was 15.5 percent for the season.

2015-16 – The final result was that each player took home 86.18 percent of their 2015-16 contract. The average escrow withholding rate was 16.96 percent.

2014-15 — Each player took home 87.05 percent of their 2014-15 contract. The average escrow withholding rate was 15 percent.

2013-14 — Each player took home 89.7 percent of their 2013-14 contract. The average escrow withholding rate was 14 percent.

2012-13 (lockout-shortened season) — Each player took home approximately 50 percent of their 2012-13 contract. The average escrow withholding rate was 16.26 percent.

So, you see why players hate this. They want to earn closer to what their actual salaries are.

It’s why it is imperative for the league to continue to grow revenues as high as possible. But the more obvious solution is to slow down the rise of the salary cap so that players aren’t eating up more than 50 percent of HRR. In some ways, the NHLPA has done just that by negotiating less than the five percent “growth factor’’ with the league the past few years when determining the final salary cap number.

But it probably needs to be even more than that.

“Stop escalating the cap to an artificially high number and the escrow percentage falls, funny how that works!’’ said one NHL team owner, who requested anonymity because the league forbids owners from talking CBA with the media.

Enter veteran Eric Staal, who has survived two NHL lockouts, a player who clearly understands the system. When The Athletic colleague Eric Duhatschek pointed out to him during our sitdown in Chicago last week that the simplest way to mitigate escrow would be to freeze the salary cap for two years, well, Staal didn’t flinch. He understood exactly what Duhatschek was saying.

“You just don’t raise the cap,’’ said Staal of the temporary idea. “ To me it’s 50-50 regardless (share of HRR between players and owners). If we don’t escalate the cap there’s going to be a year or two where there’s going to be guys who just don’t get a job. That’s why it’s hard. There will be guys who will not play again. That’s the hard part. But there are guys who are on long-term deals saying, `Yeah, freeze it, freeze it.’ Which I don’t blame them either because they signed long-term deals and that’s a lot of money coming off the deal that you’re actually not making.’’

And this is coming from a player who will be a UFA next summer. So he would be among the players being affected negatively if the cap were frozen.

The point is, there are ways to make escrow less painful in the new CBA.

Enter Donald Fehr, the veteran union chief and executive director of the NHLPA. He’ll be dealing with this in-depth with players as he attempts to find a solution for his membership in the next CBA.

“You have to differentiate escrow from how much money the players get,” Fehr told The Athletic. “What I mean by that is this: in theory, you could do a version of what the NBA does and instead of setting the cap on 50 percent we’re going to set it on 42 percent or 43 or whatever they are. What that will do is lower the cap and lower the face value of all the contracts. So you won’t have escrow. Because they won’t add up to as much on paper. The amount of money the player gets is going to be the same in aggregate because they’re still going to get 50 percent (of HRR). You could do that, or you could play around the benefits, or you could come up with exceptions of one kind or another. There’s a lot of different approaches you can take. The players’ interests are going to be different obviously than what the owners’ interests are, at least in certain respects. And from time to time, the players’ interests are going to be different from other players in the same sense that the owners, Toronto’s interest in what the cap should be is different than Arizona’s.’’

Notice how Fehr mentions that maybe there could be “exceptions’’ in the next CBA. He didn’t elaborate but it’s easy to find possible ideas — what about taking the 35-and-over players, as an example, and perhaps having more flexibility in how their compensation counts versus the cap and HRR. Or could the NHLPA try to have players on Long-Term Injured Reserve not count or count at a discount for purposes of escrow and the cap? There are other ideas out there, too, that I’m sure the NHLPA will examine.

But any “softening’’ of the rules in this area might be seen by the NHL and owners as a threat to the hard cap system.
NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly, when asked about escrow last week, responded that the league would be open to talking about a number of issues in collective bargaining, but…

“I think we are very satisfied with the type of system we have and I don’t think our ownership would be inclined to revisit the structure of the system we have,’’ he said.

The interesting thing about slowing down the rise of the salary cap as a potential solution to curb escrow is that you have another constituency that may not be particularly happy with that: big-spending clubs who want as high a cap as possible to get players.

Fehr had an interesting take on the notion of a lower cap to help mitigate escrow.

“Let’s take the current salary cap, it’s $79.5 million,” Fehr said. “What we’re going to do is we’re going to eliminate escrow, we’re going to make (the salary cap) $70 million. That does two things: it adversely affects the face value of the contracts that are being negotiated. But it has another effect, which can be pretty invidious, it means that a whole bunch of teams can’t sign anybody. So here you are as a player, do you want arguably a higher cap with some escrow or do you want a lower cap without escrow but ex-number of teams (which can’t sign players). Which do you want? It’s a process of discussion . . .

Players have to look at it globally and I’m pretty sure they will.’’

This is an issue that basically pits the players against each other in some ways: players with long-term contracts who want to curb escrow (and therefore slow the growth of the cap) against players entering their free-agent year who want as high a cap as possible to cash in.

There is no perfect solution here, but again, I can’t imagine this is worth having a labor war with the league over, is it?
Unless the players actually want to go after the notion of a hard cap, get back more than the 50-50 HRR split — and who knows, maybe the players decide to take a harder stance; otherwise if players and owners are ultimately ok living in a 50-50 HRR world, then it’s really about finding a cleaner solution to escrow within that context.

Vladimir Tarasenko began shaking his head before the question was even halfway through being asked.

“I still don’t understand the decision of not going to the Olympics. I can’t believe still they made it,’’ the St. Louis Blues star said last week.

Olympic participation is a must for players moving forward, whether that’s part of the next CBA or negotiated in a side agreement.

Missing out on last February’s Games in South Korea was a crushing blow for the game’s top players. Beijing 2022 has to be on the table for them, that much is clear.

“Players have to go, ultimately,” said Edmonton Oilers superstar Connor McDavid. “I think the NHL and the players and the hockey world missed out on what could have been an amazing Olympics. You look at this time in hockey with the mix of veteran players around the league and the mix of young talent coming in, I think they missed out on an unbelievable opportunity. Maybe not in a market (South Korea) that they want to go into I guess, but still, it’s the Olympics and everyone is watching. It’s the biggest stage in sport. I think they missed out on a huge opportunity and I don’t think the NHL or the players will miss out again.’’

McDavid joined the likes of Auston Matthews, Jack Eichel, Nate MacKinnon, Patrik Laine and many others from the new wave of young stars in the NHL that had their first potential Olympic dream dashed.
Beijing has to happen for them.

“Yeah, I feel the same way,” Matthews said when relayed McDavid’s stance. “Especially, you miss out on this first year, missing out on playing with some guys you grew up watching like Kane, JVR, (Zach) Parise, a number of different guys. You have to hope that 3-4 years down the line we get the opportunity to get back in there. Because not only is it an exciting event for players but it helps to grow the game of hockey. And everybody I’ve talked to that’s played in the Olympics says there’s nothing like it. It’s definitely an experience all of us want to have.’’

Added Eichel:

“When you think back, I think every Olympics has memorable moments, whether it’s in Sochi when Osh was scoring shootouts every two seconds, or Sid’s goal in Vancouver, it’s only every four years. That window of opportunity to play in it is short. It’s unfortunate we weren’t able to go. … That’s the biggest of biggest stages. To not be able to go was frustrating. As a league we want to grow our game, we want to continue to make it more popular on a worldwide scale and I think the Olympics is a good opportunity to do that. I think we kind of handcuffed ourselves with not going. … We’ll see what happens the next few years but I would have a hard time thinking we’re not going to be there for the next one.’’

Alex Ovechkin had always warned of going to South Korea anyway and facing an NHL suspension. But he got denied that chance when the IIHF essentially closed the door on that option by assuring the NHL it wouldn’t allow any suspended NHL players in the tournament. The IIHF runs the Olympic tournament and decides the player pool.
So the only way back into the Olympics is through the front door.

“If you’re lucky enough, how many Olympics you can play in? Three, if you’re lucky, four,” said Tarasenko. “This is a thing you don’t want to miss. It was really sad when I found out we couldn’t play there.’’

Tampa Bay star Nikita Kucherov underlined why, as a Russian, the desire to be an Olympian is deep-rooted.

“As a kid, I always watched the Olympic Games and always dreamed of being an Olympic gold medal winner,” he said. “I wish

I could play one day and all my family could be proud of me being in that tournament. … We were raised wanting to be
Olympic medallists. I grew up hoping I can be in their shoes.’’

Two-time Olympic gold medallist Jonathan Toews has been an outspoken critic of the South Korea decision. Just as he believes the NHL and NHLPA must do what’s right and avoid labour strife in a new CBA, he feels those same principles of putting the game first applies here on the Olympic issue.

“To be part of that bigger team of athletes, representing your country, being in that village, the entire world is watching and it’s always great for our sport,” said Toews. “We shouldn’t be the only ones identifying the fact that that’s helpful for everybody. That’s an example of what I’m saying as far as, let’s use our common sense and move forward with that mindset.’’

It’s important to remember that it was the IOC that began this fight before the South Korean Games by telling the NHL and NHLPA it wouldn’t afford the same carrying costs for players’ insurance and travel as the IOC had in previous Olympics.
That small crack was all the NHL needed to say no thanks, owners long ago fed up with Olympic participation, the interruption in the schedule long a thorn in their side. The league has long maintained the Olympics have never meant a boost to its bottom line.

And maybe that’s true. But what about the sport itself? What about doing what’s right for hockey? Never mind the business of the NHL.

Daly didn’t slam the door shut on future Olympic participation.

“You never say never. Our difficulties with the Olympics are apparent and well-documented. Every time Gary (Bettman) gets the question he has the answer,” Daly said. “I don’t think those issues go away. It doesn’t mean that given a different reality or a different formula we might come to a different decision. Again, I’m not going to pre-suppose that issue and I’m certainly not going to make a decision on behalf of our Board.’’

It may well be that the league would be willing to change its stance on the next Olympics as a potential “giveback’’ in CBA talks. But the NHLPA can see that coming from a mile away.

“The players aren’t going to pay them to go back to the Olympics,’’ Fehr said.

“I don’t know what the IOC’s position is going to be, I don’t know what the IIHF position is going to be, and I don’t know since it’s in China, what the NHL’s position is going to be,” added Fehr. “But the players are not going to pay the NHL to go to the Olympics anymore that they’re not going to play the IOC to go to the Olympics. And that’s not something that the NHL doesn’t understand. They understand. I just hope we can find a way to work it all out, to mesh everything, and really try and develop the international marketplace.’’

As a few players pointed out last week, the NHL once again this month is having preseason games in China, this time involving Calgary and Boston. If that’s not a true sign of where the league’s intentions are for Beijing 2022, then what is?
“I think the NHL wants to go to China, it’s a big market,” said Avs star Nate MacKinnon. “I don’t think it’s a secret they want to get into China.’’

Added Hart Trophy winner Taylor Hall: “I think the NHL wants to go to the Olympics, there’s no doubt about that, with it being in China. They certainly see it as a market that they want to branch into. I imagine the China Olympics is something we’re both on the same side for.’’

Surely, the Olympic experience, done better than ever, is something all sides can benefit from.

“There’s got to be something wrong with us if we can’t sell this to a mass audience and in a much bigger way than we’ve been able to do,’’ Fehr said.

All of which feeds into the broader international schedule, a future World Cup of Hockey, other events in Europe, it should all be part of a big, mass-scale vision the league and players need to agree to and share in.

But the Olympics? That’s a must for players. Case closed.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#3
I am hopeful and confident that there will be no labor stoppage required in connection with the next CBA:



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
Thanks given by:
#4
As long as that weasel Don Fehr is involved, there will be a work stoppage
Reply
Thanks given by:
#5


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
Thanks given by:
#6
(2019-01-10, 12:46 PM)CTS Wrote: As long as that weasel Don Fehr is involved,  there will be a work stoppage

If Fehr is a weasel, what does that make Bettman?
"I drink to make other people interesting"
~ E. Hemmingway
Reply
Thanks given by: LordFerg13 , poppabyrd
#7
Pouz' you da man with this stuff. almost makes me think you are a lawyer Wink 

Good info, but I am too lazy to digest it all. Cry
Phill 2:10-11 
Reply
Thanks given by:
#8
LeBrun with another good and solid update on the CBA and the initial and upcoming negotiations.

https://theathletic.com/767927/2019/01/1...r-lockout/

Its behind a paywall so pasting is no longer allowed on RATW.

Essentially, they are having very early discussions which they haven't been able to do in the past for various reasons.

Both sides are positive and don't see a massive issue.

The league doesn't want early termination in after the 2019/20 season - partially because the want a World Cup scheduled for that year and won't do so unless they are certain this will be a CBA in place but also because its a good deal for the league.

The players gave alot last time with agreeing to reduce their revenue share from 57% to 50% - that's not going to change but the parameters of what is HRR will be tweaked of course.

Olympics for the players in a must-have - shouldn't be an issue though as we know the league is focused on China and want to be there as well.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#9
(2019-01-10, 07:16 PM)Limestoner Wrote:
(2019-01-10, 12:46 PM)CTS Wrote: As long as that weasel Don Fehr is involved,  there will be a work stoppage

If Fehr is a weasel, what does that make Bettman?

Was just checking in to see if anyone noticed CTSs blaming the players and their reps, completely ignoring that the other side are equally at fault.. I see that someone did
Reply
Thanks given by: poppabyrd
#10
(2019-01-15, 05:32 PM)theDC Wrote:
(2019-01-10, 07:16 PM)Limestoner Wrote:
(2019-01-10, 12:46 PM)CTS Wrote: As long as that weasel Don Fehr is involved,  there will be a work stoppage

If Fehr is a weasel, what does that make Bettman?

Was just checking in to see if anyone noticed CTSs blaming the players and their reps, completely ignoring that the other side are equally at fault.. I see that someone did

Yes I've been pro owner forever. However WHEN (not if) the players get locked out again, which i fully expect at the expiration of every CBA, it's going to become increasingly difficult to support the owners 100% like I have in the past

I just despise Don Fehr with a passion from his MLB days
Reply
Thanks given by:
#11
I'm quite confident there won't be labor stoppage this time around - that hurt both the owners and players alot this past time around and there doesn't seem to be, at least at this stage, the major issues we've seen in the past (the reduction in the player's share of revenue from 57% to 50% was massive).
Reply
Thanks given by:
#12
(2019-01-15, 05:32 PM)theDC Wrote:
(2019-01-10, 07:16 PM)Limestoner Wrote:
(2019-01-10, 12:46 PM)CTS Wrote: As long as that weasel Don Fehr is involved,  there will be a work stoppage

If Fehr is a weasel, what does that make Bettman?

Was just checking in to see if anyone noticed CTSs blaming the players and their reps, completely ignoring that the other side are equally at fault.. I see that someone did

Who cares if somebody blames one side. People blame Bettman and the owners all the time.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#13
I've always been and always will be on the players side.

They have limited contracts to 8 years and cap hit to a certain %. Its not the players who get what they want. It's the owners/Gms that give it. Look after the last CBA how quick teams were to give ridiculous contracts out to circumvent.

Its bs. They want to take and take and take. But then they look for ways to get around it to give themselves advantages.

Dont forget that it was Bettman and the owners that kept the players out of the last Olympics too. GREED.


This time it's all about the players. And them getting back some of what has been taken from them. But what they ask for wont be all that bad. Nor will it be bad for the Nhl so that wont be a lockout


Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk
Reply
Thanks given by:
#14

This one is if zero surprise - the NHL at the Beijing Olympics is basically a lock. We know the players want it and will likely want it hardwired in to the CBA. At the same time, the league has a big focus on China so they clearly want it to.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
Thanks given by:
#15
Of course owners don’t want players too exercise termination. That’s the only leverage players have.

Mark my words that they players will if they don’t get assurances of the following

Olympic participation for the entire term of the next CBA (not just China) and league handling insurance costs of it

Assurance that current contract term limits won’t be rolled back (rumours are owners will be looking for max 5 now)

Players will want current definition of NHRR revised to include some pieces for the players portion of the pie

Escrow is a major pain point of the players and they will want a reduction in %

I think it’s a bit too optimistic to think this is going to be a simple negotiation by any stretch. Players are not going to simply give up the only leverage they have and Bettman’s comments are just posturing; ‘I don’t want to pick a fight or have a battle’ is BS. He doesn’t want that - he wants the players to roll over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)